Why a pastor wants Columbia's ban on ‘conversion therapy' to continue
A pastor in Columbia opposes conversion therapy as "an afront to the fact that everyone is made in the image of God." (Illustration)
As a pastor serving the people of Columbia, I write in full support of the city's 2021 ordinance of prohibiting so-called 'conversion therapy' for minors.
It is disappointing to hear that this local law which seeks to protect LGBTQ+ youth from a practice deemed harmful by every major medical and mental health association has recently come under renewed scrutiny.
The South Carolina attorney general has called for its repeal, citing the state's 2022 Medical Ethics and Diversity Act (Act 235), a law that expands conscience protections for medical practitioners and limits the authority of municipalities to regulate health care.
We respect that there are differences of opinion and belief when it comes to matters of human sexuality and gender identity. And yet, these differences cannot get in the way of protecting our children when they are being harmed in the name of care.
Let us be clear: The city of Columbia's ordinance does not criminalize sermons or compel churches to change their doctrine. It does not bar anyone from preaching what they believe.
Rather, it prohibits licensed professionals from practicing a form of therapy on minors that has been widely condemned as ineffective and psychologically damaging.
I am a pastor who does not believe that being LGBTQ+ is something that needs to be 'fixed.'
Reformation Lutheran Church, like many across South Carolina and the country, do not support 'conversion therapy.'
'Conversion therapy' is an afront to the fact that everyone is made in the image of God.
Because we are all created in the image of God, because we are all fearfully and wonderfully made by God, government has a duty to protect each and every single person including LGBTQ+ children, who are some of the most vulnerable persons in our society.
The argument made by Attorney General Alan Wilson — that the ordinance is preempted by Act 235 — misunderstands both the purpose of the city's law and the needs of the communities it serves.
Act 235 protects the right of medical practitioners not to participate in services that violate their conscience.
Columbia's ordinance doesn't compel any provider to offer any particular service; it prohibits one that leading experts agree constitutes a form of psychological harm to minors.
We reject the false narrative that protecting children from trauma violates anyone's religious freedom.
Churches remain free to teach, preach, and counsel according to their traditions.
But when harm is being done under the guise of therapy, the city has not only the right but the responsibility to step in.
We urge the Columbia City Council to stand by this ordinance — unamended, undiluted, and unafraid.
Let it be known that in this city, we do not sacrifice the well-being of children to score political points.
Let it be known that Columbia believes LGBTQ+ youth deserve to be seen, respected, and loved as they are.
The question is, will we see our neighbor on the side of the road and take them to the inn and do whatever it takes to restore them and make them whole.
Or will we cross the street to the other side while harm is intentionally done to our children?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
4 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
Southern Baptists target porn and ‘willful childlessness'
Southern Baptists meeting this week in Dallas will be asked to approve resolutions calling for a legal ban on pornography and a reversal of the U.S. Supreme Court's approval of same-sex marriage. The proposed resolutions call for laws on gender, marriage and family based on what they say is the biblically stated order of divine creation. They also call for legislators to curtail sports betting and to support policies that promote childbearing. The Southern Baptist Convention, the nation's largest Protestant denomination, is also expected to debate controversies within its own house during its annual meeting Tuesday and Wednesday — such as a proposed ban on churches with women pastors. There are also calls to defund the organization's public policy arm, whose anti-abortion stance hasn't extended to supporting criminal charges for women having abortions. Southern Baptists narrowly reject formal ban on churches with any women pastorsIn a denomination where support for President Donald Trump is strong, there is little on the advance agenda referencing specific actions by Trump since taking office in January in areas such as tariffs, immigration or the pending budget bill containing cuts in taxes, food aid and Medicaid. Southern Baptists will be meeting on the 40th anniversary of another Dallas annual meeting. An epic showdown took place when a record-shattering 45,000 church representatives clashed in what became a decisive blow in the takeover of the convention — and its seminaries and other agencies — by a more conservative faction that was also aligned with the growing Christian conservative movement in presidential politics. The 1985 showdown was 'the hinge convention in terms of the old and the new in the SBC,' said Albert Mohler, who became a key agent in the denomination's rightward shift as longtime president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. Attendance this week will likely be a fraction of 1985's, but that meeting's influence will be evident. Any debates will be among solidly conservative members. Many of the proposed resolutions — on gambling, pornography, sex, gender and marriage — reflect long-standing positions of the convention, though they are especially pointed in their demands on the wider political world. They are proposed by the official Committee on Resolutions, whose recommendations typically get strong support. A proposed resolution says legislators have a duty to 'pass laws that reflect the truth of creation and natural law — about marriage, sex, human life, and family' and to oppose laws contradicting 'what God has made plain through nature and Scripture.' To some outside observers, such language is theocratic. 'When you talk about God's design for anything, there's not a lot of room for compromise,' said Nancy Ammerman, professor emerita of sociology of religion at Boston University. She was an eyewitness to the Dallas meeting and author of 'Baptist Battles,' a history of the 1980s controversy between theological conservatives and moderates. 'There's not a lot of room for people who don't have the same understanding of who God is and how God operates in the world,' she said. Mohler said the resolutions reflect a divinely created order that predates the writing of the Scriptures and is affirmed by them. He said the Christian church has always asserted that the created order 'is binding on all persons, in all times, everywhere.' Separate resolutions decry pornography and sports betting as destructive, calling for the former to be banned and the latter curtailed. At least some of these political stances are in the realm of plausibility at a time when their conservative allies control all levers of power in Washington and many have embraced aspects of a Christian nationalist agenda. A Southern Baptist, Mike Johnson, is speaker of the House of Representatives and third in line to the presidency. At least one Supreme Court justice, Clarence Thomas, has called for revisiting the 2015 Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide. Other religious conservatives — including some in the Catholic postliberal movement, which has influenced Vice President JD Vance — have promoted the view that a robust government should legislate morality, such as banning pornography while easing church-state separation. And conservatives of various stripes have echoed one of the resolution's call for pro-natalist policies and its decrying of 'willful childlessness which contributes to a declining fertility rate.' Some preconvention talk has focused on defunding the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, the Southern Baptist Convention's public policy arm, which has been accused of being ineffective. Ten former Southern Baptist presidents endorsed its continued funding, though one other called for the opposite. A staunchly conservative group, the Center for Baptist Leadership, has posted online articles critical of the commission, which is adamantly anti-abortion but has opposed state laws criminalizing women seeking abortions. The commission has appealed to Southern Baptists for support, citing its advocacy for religious liberty and against abortion and transgender identity. 'Without the ERLC, you will send the message to our nation's lawmakers and the public at large that the SBC has chosen to abandon the public square at a time when the Southern Baptist voice is most needed,' said a video statement from the commission president, Brent Leatherwood. A group of Southern Baptist ethnic groups and leaders signed a statement in April citing concern over Trump's immigration crackdown, saying it has hurt church attendance and raised fears. 'Law and order are necessary, but enforcement must be accompanied with compassion that doesn't demonize those fleeing oppression, violence, and persecution,' the statement said. The Center for Baptist Leadership, however, denounced the denominational Baptist Press for working to 'weaponize empathy' in its reporting on the statement and Leatherwood for supporting it. Texas pastor Dwight McKissic, a Black pastor who shares many of the Southern Baptist Convention's conservative stances, criticized what he sees as a backlash against the commission, 'the most racially progressive entity in the SBC.' 'The SBC is transitioning from an evangelical organization to a fundamentalist organization,' he posted on the social media site X. 'Fewer and fewer Black churches will make the transition with them.' An amendment to ban churches with women pastors failed in 2024 after narrowly failing to gain a two-thirds supermajority for two consecutive years. It is expected to be reintroduced. The denomination's belief statement says the office of pastor is limited to men, but there remain disagreements over whether this applies only to the lead pastor or to assistants as well. In recent years, the convention began purging churches that either had women as lead pastors or asserted that they could serve that role. But when an SBC committee this year retained a South Carolina megachurch with a woman on its pastoral staff, some argued this proved the need for a constitutional amendment. (The church later quit the denomination of its own accord.) The meeting comes as the Southern Baptist Convention continues its long membership slide, down 2% in 2024 from the previous year in its 18th consecutive annual decline. The organization now reports a membership of 12.7 million members, still the largest among Protestant denominations, many of whom are shrinking faster. More promising are Southern Baptists' baptism numbers — a key spiritual vital sign. They stand at 250,643, exceeding pre-pandemic levels and, at least for now, reversing a long slide.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Sumner County looks to support state resolution declaring July as month of prayer
SUMNER COUNTY, Tenn. (WKRN) — Sumner County commissioners will soon vote on a resolution asking for the 'Holy Spirit to move within the halls of government.' It echoes a resolution signed by Gov. Bill Lee, which designates July as the annual month of 'prayer, fasting and repentance' in Tennessee. 'There is no denying that the world, and especially America, is a better place because of Christianity, not in spite of it,' said Sumner County County Commissioner Jeremy Mansfield. '9-1-1: Nashville' to start filming this summer in Middle Tennessee Introduced in 2024 by State Representatives Monty Fritts and Mark Pody, the resolution declares the presence and importance of God within Tennessee. The proclamation, House Joint Resolution 51, asks, in part, for Jesus to bring a 'righteous unity of vision and purpose to all Tennesseans.' 'That recognition of our sins and short-comings and asking God's forgiveness,' Mansfield said of the resolution. 'And asking God and Jesus to remove corruption, criminal violence, addiction from our state and restore marriages, strengthen families, which is going to be better for [our] communities.' 'This represents the values of our community, and represents the values of our constitution and our founding,' Mansfield added. Mansfield does not believe any other county government in Tennessee has adopted a resolution like this, acknowledging July as a month of prayer. He said he hopes that changes before the end of June. Of course, religion doesn't represent everybody in Sumner County, and not everyone is a Christian. What about those who may feel this is the government crossing a line? ⏩ 'I don't see the premise for it. If you read our Constitution, the government protects religious freedom. And we have a freedom of religion, not a freedom from religion,' answered Mansfield. 'And all of our Founding Fathers, most of them, were Christians. And our country, unequivocally, was founded based on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.' Mansfield said residents that aren't 'spiritually inclined' do not have to participate in the month's holy recognition. The Sumner County Commission is expected to review, and likely pass the resolution of acknowledgement on June 30. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Editorial: MAGA morphs into Make America Cruel Again
The horrifying weekend scenes in Los Angeles — National Guard on the streets, the governor of California threatening to sue the president of the United States for breaching state sovereignty, vehicles set on fire, attacks on law enforcement officers, ordinary people getting hurt, kids seeing all kinds of horrors from people they have been taught to trust — were deeply disturbing to the point where we wondered how on God's green earth this country can hold it together for three-and-a-half more years of this level of presidential overreach, this amount of hatred and division. But we do know this. We sure don't want to see any kind of repeat of those scenes in Chicago. Everyone had better pick their words carefully. Nobody can argue that Donald Trump, as president of the United States, does not have the authority to deport those who crossed the border without authorization and who have received due process in a court of law. Nobody can argue that he did not disclose his intention to do so during the presidential campaign. Nobody who believes in the rule of law can say that federal agents should be physically prevented from following their orders (withholding cooperation is something entirely different). And nobody can say that the Trump administration is the first to remove such people. But the brute nature of the methodology, the scale of the operation and the horrifying accompanying theatrics should shock every American, even those who consider themselves part of the MAGA movement. They supposedly signed up for American greatness, not abject cruelty. This is the danger of a fundamentally performative president, a leader for whom the political benefits of calling in the National Guard clearly outranks the far greater risks, which is that such a decision destabilizes a city and forces everyone into ever more extreme positions. The scorched earth rhetoric from federal officials has been like something out of dystopian fiction. Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff, posted on social media that 'this is a fight to save civilization.' On the contrary, Mr. Miller. His ultimate boss, Trump, said 'a once great American City, Los Angeles, has been invaded and occupied by Illegal Aliens and Criminals,' which is so much balderdash, mere red-meat language designed for political purposes and not effective immigration policy, which requires disincentives, sure, but also nuance, complexity and a sense of the historical realities. There was a mandate from the American people for securing the border, deporting those who break or have broken the law and for fixing immigration. There was no mandate for brutality. We lay some of the blame for what happened in Los Angeles this weekend on both political parties, given that it is at least in part a consequence of their collective failure to pass any kind of comprehensive immigration reform that would have secured the borders, prevented overwhelming numbers of unauthorized folks entering and offered a fair and compassionate solution for the many people here without legal permission who have lived productive U.S. for years. That's on Democrats, who allowed the border to get out of control during the first part of the Biden administration, as well as Republicans. Many left-wing Democrats came to favor de facto open borders over the past several years, or at least no criminal-style enforcements of immigration violations, and Democrats knew they could not get that past a plurality of Americans in a general election. Rather than confront that internal division and reach a compromise, they punted for years. By the time Trump had total fealty from the Republican Party and could (and did) derail any such effort merely for his own political gain, it was too late. And now, with cruel, scorched-earth zealots in charge, we have the worst of all possible worlds for America's great cities and for many people whose only crime was trying to escape poverty and seeking out a better life. Anyone with even an ounce of common sense could see that Trump's apparent intention of deporting 12 million people in the country without legal permission, concentrated as they are in the core of America's biggest cities, is both unethical and impractical, given the above. The current rhetoric makes no distinction between recent arrivals and those who have lived here productively for years, and it paints otherwise law-abiding folks with the same brush as criminals, which is un-American. Leaders of blue cities and governors of blue states now find themselves caught somewhere between wanting to stop these deportations, over which they know they have no formal legal control, and their Welcoming Cities ordinances that forbid only cooperation with federal authorities. They, too, have political considerations to weigh. But they should not be the prime concern. Caught in the middle are local police departments, whose job is not to aid federal immigration officers but to maintain law and order. On the one hand, they have to deal with the tactics of an increasingly militarized ICE, as aided by the National Guard. They also have to deal with progressive politicians ready to accuse them of cooperation at every juncture. No, cops should not leave when protesters (or rioters, depending on your preferred politics) take to the streets. They have a different job to do, which is to keep our cities safe. So we are serving advance notice, Mr. President, that we don't want to see the National Guard, or the Marines, or any other branch of the U.S. military on the streets of Chicago. We urge you to dial down the rhetoric and the threats and we call on Democratic officials to do the same, which is not to say they should refrain from disagreeing with the manner of these actions. We urge those in your administration to negotiate with local officials, to treat everyone with dignity and respect, and to understand, for the love of God, that our children are watching and listening. Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@
